Some wishes

tstockton · Post by **tstockton** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:13 pm

Paul,

I understand where you're coming from... which is why I watch for sales (both here and elsewhere), and "shop" on eBay for many of my acquisitions.

However, if I understand correctly -- most of GHQ's costs come from the tooling and the machinery used to make these models. The difference in cost for the metal used from a "jeep" to an MBT is rather small -- but the tooling, dies, casting machinery, packaging, handling, administrative costs, plus enough of a profit to stay in business would be pretty much the same for each pack. Hence, the uniform pricing.

They could probably charge us a few cents less for a pack of "jeeps", and a few cents more for a pack of MBT's -- but it's probably easier for all concerned to "average" the costs across the product line and simplify the pricing process.

I've often wondered why many retail businesses don't factor in the price of sales tax, "average" or "round off" as necessary, and eliminate the penny from the pricing equation. Indeed, I've seen at sporting arenas (for example), where a beverage is listed as $3.00 -- and then in small print below you see something like beverage = $2.68 + 32 cents tax = $3.00.

I know it's a marketing ploy to mark something at $99.95 instead of $100.00 -- that many folks are somewhat fooled by the appearance of a "good deal". I also remember my late father telling me about a local farmer sold eggs at a roadside stand... 30 cents a dozen or three dozen for $1.00 -- and how many people thought they were getting a good deal and would buy three dozen!

Going back to your post... I would guess that is why a pack of "jeeps" costs as much as a pack of MBT's. Hmmmm... maybe we should look at it the other way -- we're getting a pack of MBT's for the same price as a pack of "jeeps"!!

Regards,
Tom Stockton

Harlan · Post by **Harlan** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:18 pm

Almost all the M-93 Foxes that I have seen have CROWS (Crew-served Remote Operated Weapons Station). I have also seen many M-1114s and M-1151 with the CROWS. Many of the HEMTTS, PLS, HET, and FMTV have turrets from M1114 mounted on top of their caps.

The the Armored Landrovers here were post 2003 deliveries. I have not seen any Otokar vehicles, Talah APC, or VCR APC. Nine of the ten Iraq divisions are motorized - pick ups, S55, M1114, and lorries. Only one division is mechanized and it only has T-72, T-55, BMP1, MTLB (used as APC), M113, and M557. Some of the more interesting IA vehicle combination are:
M-1114 with DsKh
Ford F350 with DsKh
M-35 2.5t with armored sides
Chevrolet 3500 HD with PKC, armored gunshield, plastic chair for the gunner to sit in
Nissan Pickup with PKC and the gunner sitting in an old school chair
International Wrecker (the type that tows tractors and trailer, sorry, I do not know the model name)
UAZ-469 with PKCs
I have sent many pick ups (Army and Police) with an armor "bath tub" in the bed of the truck.

Several of the private security firms have black Ford F350 with armored box and turret in the bed of the truck. One of the nicest looking vehicle I have send are the armored Peterbuilt tractors.

av8rmongo · Post by **av8rmongo** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:12 pm

Tom,

Yes I've heard the arguement before and yes I do understand it, to a point. I can see how producing such fine quality molds, tools and dies can be an expensive proposition. I can see how producing an MBT that requires a mold for the hull, a mold for the turret and in some cases a mold for MGs etc. should be "Full Price". But when you compare that to a mold for a single piece vehicle like the Iltis or Land Rover whatever I just don't see it.

If you prefer comparing apples to apples lets take the case of recovery vehicles. If you buy US then your $8.95 gets you two M-88s and two m-578s - now that's two different hulls, a turret, an A-frame and I don't recall if the M-88 dozer blade is attached or separate. Contrast that to the German BPz-1 where you get two hulls, dozer blades and recovery arms. Three molds required for Germany vs. four (maybe five) molds required for US. Maybe this is a comparable cost to develop? Then why not get those extrat two BPz-1 hulls in the pack so there is a similar hull count?

I agree that the sunk costs of making molds etc. is the major portion of getting a product out the door. And I agree that they have every right to recoup those costs and make a profit. What I'm trying to point out is that the market strategy is flawed as it affects their production strategy. Do you think they would sell more packs of Iltis for $8.95 if they included 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 in a pack instead of just 5? Probably. If the material cost for the metal is relatively small (previous assumption from your post) then at what point will these increased sales offset the small increase in cost? I don't know and I bet they don't either. If they have total production / sales figures by catalog number I'm willing to bet the Iltis lags behind. But I'm also willing to bet sales could be increased if the relative value were increased.

Now when they made their molds (and I admit I haven't the slightest idea how its done) did they make them with the fixed notion that 5 vehicles would go into a pack? If they had based it on a TO&E or on some other criteria like "how many can I make for a fixed cost?" then five might not have been the magic number. The mold could have been crafted from the beginning to account for the customer's perception of value for the dollar (or your currency of choice). I can't believe that a fixed cost model is driving it because as described above the number of molds required to make other models offered by GHQ would be much more expensive.

How about this? Using a tiered pricing structure, such as GHQ already uses for their 1/2400 scale ships, could restore some relative value to these smaller packs. Smaller ships sell for $7.75 as you work up in size the price moves up as well. Some are $8.95 some are $11.95 etc. etc. I don't know anyone who would pay the same amount for 3 Pegasus PHMs as they would for a Nimitz class carrier. Yet, on a smaller scale, that is what they are asking for micro armor. Doesn't make sense.

I love GHQ's products and I know there's no way to change a leopard's spots just ranting for the sake of ranting.

Paul

pit · Post by **pit** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:34 am

Hi Paul,

iÂ´m very sorry for this bad image but that the only one who show both vehicles a german g-wagon and a belgium iltis.

maybe this vehicle looks similar ( in my opinion they are very different). but this is the first bath of g-wagon MB 250GD soft top short wheele base.
today the german army used MB 290GD or G 270 CDi with long wheele base as soft top or hard top (station waggon) so you cannnot use the Iltis as MB Gelaendewagen.

best regards
pit

av8rmongo · Post by **av8rmongo** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:20 am

Pit,

Thanks for the picture!

Paul

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:09 pm

Hello,

@Harlan: again many thanks for the infos!
Have to say that I was thinking in a very wrong direction

...
The vehicle I had in mind while reading about the S55 is in fact another one.
I was thinking about the Shorland S52

. Now I had a look for it and found out that the Shorland S55 isn't the old one as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Furthermore the Shorland S55 looks exactly like the Otokar vehicle. As Otokar produces Land Rovers under license, it looks like they produce the Shorland S55 under license as well.

@Paul: I have to second Pit - especially with the excellent GHQ models there is no chance to use Iltis as MB G-wagon. The vehicles are indeed very different (design, size).

Best greetings,
Ben

raffraff · Post by **raffraff** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:10 pm

i would like to see a T-10 tank and PzKpfw III with skirts or German WW2 tank accesory

Pitfall · Post by **Pitfall** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:46 pm

I second the idea for acessory packs. Maybe even goliaths (if GHQ doesn't already make them).

xhrit · Post by **xhrit** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:57 am

I want more airpower.

F-35 Lightning II
Chengdu J-10
Eurocopter AS 365N Dauphin II

chrisswim · Post by **chrisswim** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:40 am

Paul, I may have a bunch of Itilis to go along with sails...according to my wife.

How many? I'll use 'em for the Glenda Wagon.

av8rmongo · Post by **av8rmongo** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:37 pm

Chris,

Do you have my mailing address for the sails?

Paul

shawno · Post by **shawno** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:08 pm

Yea, having seen the G wagon's here that replaced our iltis, they really are a far cry from each other..

If you're going for serious detail, it won't work. I can overlook it though.

chrisswim · Post by **chrisswim** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:36 pm

No. i will PM you.

Vorster · Post by **Vorster** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:34 pm

South African kit. Please Please Please.

A few Ratels, a Buffel, a Casspir and some Samils. I would provide the good folks at GHQ with line drawings of these vehicles if required. No need for the modern stuff such a Rooikat or Olifant Mk2 yet. Just get us rolling on a bush war scenario for now.

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:18 pm

Hello,

I recently ordered some Saracen APCs. While looking at those vehicles and it's brother Saladin a further wish occured.

The Stalwart HMLC

As GHQ already makes the chassis I think this one would be a nice addition for the modern UK range.

Cheers Ben